I have mixed feelings about the article, and my point of view towards guns because I believe that yes, people should be able to own guns, but I also believe that Mike Royko makes a very compelling argument.
I think the way Mike Royko talks about guns and how they not only kill the intended but they may also harm innocent bystanders, is a view I have not ever really put into consideration, and I think that other people really do not consider as well. I have always been one to think that people should be able to own guns if seen fit, and I still do, but I also have to agree with Royko and how they do harm the innocent. The author says, “Then, with the kind of madness that erupts every day somewhere in this country, one of the men drew a pistol and fired it six times. Four of the bullets hit the other man, killing him. And one bullet ripped into a 12-year-old boy, killing him, too. Still another struck a second boy, wounding him.” Even though the man may not of tried killing …show more content…
Just as they will say that if the killer had been trained to respect guns, as they are, this wouldn't have happened. He was trained. He had been a security guard, went through handgun training, and was licensed to carry the gun, even though he had long been unemployed. And they will also snarl that the answer is not to ban handguns, but to really be rough on those who commit crimes with them.” I would have to say there is going to be no real solution to the problem. Banning guns will only lead to more people owning them illegally and causing a huge riot throughout the country and not having them banned will lead to more problems like innocent people dying and huge debates. While I agree that there should be more gun control, I also know that it is not going to fix the problem. Having stricter laws and finding out more about the person buying the gun will help somewhat, but it will not resolve the whole